The key takeaway from the analysis of your case is that:

There appears to be a fundamental legal conflict. The functioning of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission conflicts with the core principles. These principles are from the Right to Information Act 2005 and are central to understanding the Uttar Pradesh RTI Process.

Here are the three critical points of contention:

• Supremacy of the Act over Rules: The PIO is using UP RTI Rules 2015 to limit who can request information. This action is not in compliance with the law. Legally, a state-level “Rule” cannot take away a right granted by the “Central Act.” Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005 allows any citizen to request information. The PIO’s denial based on “locus standi” (personal connection to the matter) violates the parent law. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)
• Logical Contradiction in Denial: The PIO’s response is “arbitrary” because it uses two conflicting excuses. Initially, he claims you aren’t allowed to ask (under state rules). Then, he claims the information is exempt as “personal” (under the Central Act). If the first were true, the second wouldn’t be necessary. By using both, the PIO is essentially “stacking” excuses to avoid transparency.
• The “Non-Speaking” Order: The First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to address your specific legal grievance regarding these contradictions. The FAA merely closed the case, stating that “information has been provided.” This occurred even if that information was a refusal. The FAA acted as a rubber stamp for the PIO rather than a neutral judge.

The Ultimate Conclusion (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

The working of the Commission in this instance reflects administrative tyranny. The body meant to enforce transparency is using procedural technicalities. These technicalities protect it from scrutiny regarding its own internal irregularities.

Would you like me to draft a specific point-by-point rebuttal for your Second Appeal? This would highlight these legal contradictions for the Information Commissioner.

This blog post provides a structured analysis of the legal and administrative conflicts present in the case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

---

Uttar Pradesh RTI Process: Arbitrariness and Contradiction in the UP Information Commission

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power. However, when the State Information Commission—the very institution designed to protect this right—faces accusations of using contradictory rules, it fails. This situation suppresses transparency. As a result, the foundation of democratic accountability begins to crumble.

The case of First Appeal Number UPICM/A/2025/60058 highlights a growing concern. State-level “Rules” are used to override the parent “Act.” This situation leads to what many call administrative tyranny.

---

1. The Core Dispute: Act vs. Rules (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

The appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, sought information regarding alleged irregularities within the commission itself. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the request using a two-pronged, and arguably contradictory, defense:

• The UP RTI Rules 2015 (Section 6): The PIO claimed that under state rules. An individual cannot seek information on behalf of another person. This applies in the case of Sadhana Tiwari.
• The RTI Act 2005 (Section 8(1)(j)): At the same time, the PIO invoked the “Personal Information” exemption. The PIO claimed the data had no relation to public activity.

2. The Legal Paradox: Can a Rule Override an Act?

The primary contention raised by the appellant is the principle of “Without Prejudice.” In legal terms, rules framed by a state, such as the UP RTI Rules 2015, have a specific purpose. They are meant to facilitate the implementation of the Parent Act. The parent Act is the RTI Act 2005. These rules should not restrict or diminish the rights granted by it. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

Section 6(1) of the Central RTI Act is clear: Any citizen can request information. It does not mandate a “locus standi” (personal interest) in the matter. The PIO invokes state rules to limit who can ask for what. This action effectively adds a restriction that the Parliament of India never intended.

3. Contradictions in the PIO’s Denial (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

There is a glaring logical inconsistency in the PIO’s response that suggests arbitrariness:

1. The “Third Party” Argument: The PIO relies on the UP Rules. He says, “You cannot ask for someone else’s info.” He contests the applicant’s eligibility. He is challenging the applicant’s eligibility.
2. The “Section 8” Argument: The PIO cites Section 8(1)(j) of the Act (Personal Information). This citation acknowledges the applicant’s right to apply. However, it denies the content of the request.

You cannot simultaneously argue that an application is invalid under state rules and also legally exempted under the central act. This “scattergun” approach to denials suggests a predetermined motive to withhold information rather than a fair application of the law.

---

4. The First Appellate Authority (FAA): A Rubber Stamp?

The order passed by Shri Tejaskar Pandey (FAA) on 09.06.2025 further complicates the issue. The FAA’s order states:

“On perusal… it was found that the information sought… has been provided… there seems to be no justification in keeping the case pending.” (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

This is a classic “non-speaking order.” It fails to address the appellant’s specific legal argument. How can a state rule restrict the universal right granted under Section 6(1) of the Central Act? The FAA did not address the core grievance. It simply stated that “information was provided,” even if that “information” was just a refusal letter. This approach arguably resulted in the FAA failing in its quasi-judicial duty.

---

5. Systemic Corruption and Administrative Tyranny (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

When a Public Information Officer escapes transparency. They do this by hiding behind complex and contradictory interpretations of the law. Such actions foster an environment of corruption.

• Arbitrariness: Choosing which law to apply based on what makes denial easier.
• Tyranny: Using the machinery of the Commission to protect the Commission from scrutiny.

If the Information Commission—the final court of appeal for transparency—fails to uphold its duty, transparency suffers. The common citizen is then left with no recourse but the High Courts. This path is often too expensive for the average person.

---

6. Conclusion: The Road to the Second Appeal

The appellant has been directed to file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. This case stands as a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. Will the Commission uphold the supremacy of the Central RTI Act? Or will it permit state-level “Rules” to be used as a shield for administrative irregularities?

True transparency requires that the “how” and “why” of a denial be as clear as the information itself. In this case, the clarity is missing, replaced by a wall of contradictory legal jargon.

---

Key Takeaways for RTI Activists

Issue	Reality
Locus Standi	Not required under RTI Act 2005; any citizen can ask.
State Rules	Cannot override the provisions of the Central Act.
Section 8(1)(j)	Requires a “speaking order” proving the info is purely private.

To help you move forward with your legal challenge or second appeal, we provide the verified contact details. You will also find the official links for the concerned authorities at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

1. Key Public Authorities (UPIC) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

These are the specific officers involved in your case mentioned in the appeal order.

Role	Name	Designation	Contact Details
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Shri Tejaskar Pandey	Deputy Secretary	Mobile: 9415021746 / 9454411791 Email: deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Shri Mumtaz Ahmed	Administrative Officer	Mobile: 9151804317 Email: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
Registrar	Shri Sandeep Gupta	Registrar	Email: registrar-upic@up.gov.in

---

2. Official Communication & Portal Details

If you are filing a Second Appeal or sending a formal complaint regarding the “arbitrariness” of the order, use these official channels:

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Online RTI Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (For filing and tracking appeals)
• General Helpline: 0522-2724930
• Technical Helpline: 0522-7118629 (Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in)
• Physical Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010.

---

3. Summary Table for Your Application (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

Field	Details
Application ID	UPICM/R/2025/60156
First Appeal No.	UPICM/A/2025/60058
Order Date	09.06.2025
Next Legal Step	Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act 2005

Next Steps

Since the FAA has already passed an order (dated 09.06.2025), you have a 45-day window (extendable under certain conditions) to file your Second Appeal. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Process)

Would you like me to draft the “Statement of Facts” for your Second Appeal? I would specifically focus on how the PIO’s use of UP RTI Rules 2015 contradicts the Central RTI Act 2005.